I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this?

And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?

I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this?

And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?

The local customers (you, me, whomever) picked up a contract from Verizon, and moved to a rural area. The area isn't services by Verizon directly, and thus are constantly roaming, using data, minutes, texts while on another carrier.

Verizon is dropping these customers because they aren't making enough money, period.

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

I get that they have other providers in the market. But this just goes to point out how unready wireless broadband is to take over for cable or fiber.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this?

And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?

I meant to say that the FCC has taken the official stance that wireless broadband (from a cellular provider) is an adequate replacement for wired broadband (fiber or copper). I think this is an instance where that shows not to hold water.

Verizon often sells stuff to "roaming" markets because their maps say they have coverage (even if it is roaming) and their sales people don't know any better (or they do and just want the sale). We have this constantly around here with both AT&T and Verizon. They sell into each others territory (which are basically town and city limits).

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.

Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.

And frankly I'm not really sure where Verizon is involved here - ok Verizon got the local company to expand... is the local company the roaming company in question here? Why did Verizon sell service here instead of the local company?

Verizon was using the towers of whatever the local company was and has a roaming agreement with them. The problem I think is that while the "local" company probably covers a small area but not anything beyond that (which is often the case in rural markets). Whereas Verizon does cover the areas beyond it.

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.

Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.

Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.

Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.

Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.

Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.

Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.

And what exactly is your point?

That the FCC is wrong in saying that Wireless broadband is an adequate replacement for wired broadband.

In terms of FCC involvement, not sure if they should be or not, but why doesn't verizon charge the customer for the roaming charges. . .

As far as I know, cell phone companies have never forced customers to change plans. Changing of the plan would be the only way Verizon would be allowed to start charging them roaming fees, since their current plan says no roaming fees.

Since they can't force them to change plans, their only option is to drop them. It's likely they could attempt to get a new contract, but Verizon might not have a plan that accounts for so much roaming... so they might say no.

Right, not sure what your point is? This does nothing to negate my point and only reinforces it.

And what exactly is your point?

That the FCC is wrong in saying that Wireless broadband is an adequate replacement for wired broadband.

Really? How does this prove that point? If anything it says the opposite (but really it doesn't say anything for either side). The article says that Verizon said that some customers are using in excess of 1 TB of data (we're assuming over wireless) while roaming. That sounds like a pretty big chunk.

The customer quoted for only using 50 GB, still a pretty good chunk even over 4 devices for wireless. It's clear that wireless data is at least available in these affected areas, to the point that Verizon wants to dump these customers.

How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?

Not in the least. Now do you think that actually matters to anyone?

Why do you say that? What do you mean not in the least? Everything the FCC does is federal and supercedes state laws.

Because I actually know the constitution and what the federal government is allowed. Like I said, nobody at any level actually pays any attention to it today, but it's never officially been changed to allow things like the FCC to exist.